| From: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: count_nulls(VARIADIC "any") |
| Date: | 2016-01-12 16:27:07 |
| Message-ID: | 5695295B.1030905@joh.to |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 03/01/16 22:49, Jim Nasby wrote:
> In the unit test, I'd personally prefer just building a table with the
> test cases and the expected NULL/NOT NULL results, at least for all the
> calls that would fit that paradigm. That should significantly reduce the
> size of the test. Not a huge deal though...
I don't really see the point. "The size of the test" doesn't seem like
a worthwhile optimization target, unless the test scripts are somehow
really unnecessarily large.
Further, if you were developing code related to this, previously you
could just copy-paste the defective test case in order to easily
reproduce a problem. But now suddenly you need a ton of different setup.
I don't expect to really have a say in this, but I think the tests are
now worse than they were before.
.m
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2016-01-12 16:50:25 | Re: proposal: PL/Pythonu - function ereport |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2016-01-12 16:16:54 | Re: Fwd: [JDBC] Re: 9.4-1207 behaves differently with server side prepared statements compared to 9.2-1102 |